"Git provides file versioning services only, whereas Fossil adds an integrated wiki, ticketing & bug tracking, embedded documentation, and News/Blog features. These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party user-installed add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design." Am I the only one who's actively suspicious about this kind of thing? With Git, I can use whatever wiki, ticketing, do…
Have you ever tried to set up a Gitorious box? Not that it's difficult (it is) but it is a complete waste of people's time. If I want to fiddle with every aspect of my development tools, maybe I'm not Fossil's target. Next time I need to set a small coding project (I attend a few OSS hackfests every year), I'll definitely consider Fossil instead of git.
Fossil Versus Git
71–80 of 89 posts
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#72Git features the "rebase" command which can be used to change the sequence of check-ins in the repository. Rebase can be used to "clean up" a complex sequence of check-ins to make their intent easier for others to understand. From another point of view, rebase can be used to "rewrite history" - to do what Winston Smith did for a living in Orwell's novel 1984. This is FUD. Git never erases history; it merely moves mut…
I'm not familiar with other DCVS tools, but I have delved pretty heavily into the history rewriting capabilities of git. Git is just a power tool. It won't ruin your day like rm -rf will, but it will give you enough rope to rappel your way down into ontological horror. I have been using it to write extended tutorials on my local system. I may find a bug at step 45 that needs to be fixed back at step 2. I am pretty su…
Scenario #1:
I'm working on a feature branch. I have a number of discrete changes
that I'm making. I attempt to keep each of these changes in its own
separate commit. After completing 10 such changes, I realize that I
introduced a bug in change 3. I commit the bugfix with the same
commit message title as change 3, but with a "squash!" prefixed at
the front of it. Now when I'm finished with my changes on the
feature branch I can run "git rebase -i". git-rebase will
automatically position the bugfix to change 3 next to change 3 and
set it up to be squashed into the change 3 commit. Then when I merge
my changes into master there are only commits for changes 1-12,
instead of 50 commits covering all of the minor bugs that I fixed
with my undeployed code.
Scenario #2: Rewriting commit messages. This is one that I use all of the time at
work. I use a commit message template that has "Reviewed-by: ???" at
the bottom. When I do all of be topic branch development, I don't
get someone to review each individual commit prior to commiting it
(as that would defeat the purpose of a DVCS... might as well go back
to SVN at that point and managing chunks of changes prior to commits
with something like `quilt`). So now all of my commit messages have
"Reviewed-by: ???" on them. Prior to merging the changes back into
master, I can use git-rebase or git-filter-branch to go back and
edit my history to change "Reviewed-by: ???" to "Reviewed-by: Bob"
on my commit messages.Re: Fossil Versus Git
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fossil does not have a staging area. Instead, like Mercurial, it encourages you to stash things you do not plan to commit.
Does it have a patch mode for stashing? Use case: A commit should only do one thing at a time, but sometimes I'm not as organized. I like to do a whole mess of work and when I'm ready to commit it, I use git add --patch to separate out unrelated bits of work into separate commits--even if separate bits of work end up in the same file. It's amazing how much a load off your mind this is--you don't have to be quite as O…
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever tried to set up a Gitorious box? Not that it's difficult (it is) but it is a complete waste of people's time. If I want to fiddle with every aspect of my development tools, maybe I'm not Fossil's target. Next time I need to set a small coding project (I attend a few OSS hackfests every year), I'll definitely consider Fossil instead of git.
> Have you ever tried to set up a Gitorious box? Yes! :'( Complicated to set up and complicated to maintain. And its black box approach to storing the repositories on disk - using UUIDs as folder names, doesn't inspire confidence if the complicated card house should fall over. I'm not saying Gitorious is a house of cards, but it didn't fit the bill for me at all as a person with limited time to fiddle with a source c…
That's exactly the scenario I had in mind. I have attended some hack fests myself and, besides the general chaos and lack of coordination, there's the particular issue of how people share code, report issues and write stuff down. Everything is everywhere. It's a mess.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's too bad. Though I mostly use mercurial, when it's appropriate and I get to choose, I've played with fossil and it is quite a nice package. Super easy to setup, fully featured, easy to use, and does what I want. Before you shitcan the whole idea, why not play with it for a few minutes?
It would help if at least Fossil could use a Git repository (similar to the git plugin for Mercurial). No point in having different projects using multiple version control systems.
I use Git when I'm releasing binaries to people (because I like its tagging better) or when I have to track some upstream code and merge in some local changes.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#76"Git provides file versioning services only, whereas Fossil adds an integrated wiki, ticketing & bug tracking, embedded documentation, and News/Blog features. These additional capabilities are available for Git as 3rd-party user-installed add-ons, but with Fossil they are integrated into the design." Am I the only one who's actively suspicious about this kind of thing? With Git, I can use whatever wiki, ticketing, do…
I would argue that Github has many if not all of those features. Wiki - check Ticketing & Bug Tracking - Github has 'issues' Embedded documentation - include a README file in your repo, and Github immediately shows that under your project News/Blog features - Github has pages, and automatically generates RSS feeds for your commits. I'd argue that Github does all these things better than Fossil (or I) can ever do - th…
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a small community and not being well-known are not advantages. I am not sure I can agree with this. Smaller communities are often nicer. Think of all the talk around here of growing pains, loss of niceness, comparisons to Reddit or Dig, eternal September, etc. that have come about as the community grows.
That's one way in which a discussion community like HN is different from an open-source product-user community.
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#78Look, new projects should have these pages, and they SHOULD be passionate and biased. However, shit like this makes me stop reading: "Git has a huge user community. If following the herd and being like everybody else is important to you, then you should choose Git."
Re: Fossil Versus Git
#79Re: Fossil Versus Git
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if I want private repositories at github I have to pay!
And if you want Fossil hosted on a web-accessible server you have to pay for that somehow anyway.